W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-ig@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Progress on SVG book -- question concerning <embed> vs <object> in HTML

From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:53:47 -0500
Message-ID: <da131fde0904031353h7dd89a15t1a88448286eff6d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>
Cc: SVG IG List <public-svg-ig@w3.org>, jferrai@us.ibm.com
On 4/3/09, Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu> wrote:
>
> 2. Since <embed> works everywhere, why not recommend it? Is the only reason
> not to that it is not a W3C standard? What do I tell our readers who may not
> care if it’s a standard or not so long as it works?
>

HTML5 does indeed grandfather the <embed> element back into the HTML
specification, but there is no fallback content for <embed>, as far as
I understand things.  This means that IE user don't get any fallback
content if there is no SVG plugin installed.

If you're going to go this way and you still want to use <embed> for
ASV, what about using IE conditional comments?  Kind of a pain, but
perhaps the best of all worlds:

<!--[if lte IE 8]>
  <embed .... />
<![endif]-->

<!--[if !IE]>-->
  <object type="image/svg+xml" .../>
<!--<![endif]-->

Here's a good article about them:
http://www.unintentionallyblank.co.uk/2006/09/19/if-internet-explorer-then-do-something-else-a-how-to/

Regards,
Jeff

>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * platitudes like that often make me nervous (“patriot act” “no child left
> behind” --- it seems like they usually have just the opposite effect)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: public-svg-ig-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-svg-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dailey,
> David P.
>  Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:04 AM
>  To: SVG IG List
>  Subject: Progress on SVG book
>
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
>
>
> A mini-landmark has been attained: I’ve finished the first phase of
> editorial revision: completing the translation from MS Word to HTML (begun
> by Doug in October).  Next I’ll be sweeping through the document with
> regards to both incorporating changes suggested by the various reviewers and
> modernizing the text a little bit (e.g. to reflect the presence of SVG
> support in new browsers like Chrome and Safari). A bit of that modernization
> has already begun, as I happened to see things in sweeping through the HTML.
>
>
>
>
> I believe the Appendix on HTML should just quietly disappear. HTML is in the
> midst of rapid change and I am not the right person to write about it. Its
> inclusion made sense, it seemed, when the document was intended for print.
> In the meantime I’ve included a link to Dave Raggett’s Introduction to the
> subjection. Unless anyone sees a reason to revise it or keep it, then I’ll
> remove it once I’ve found and removed any references to it from the main
> text.
>
>
>
> The current version (which gets it back to where it was as a print document
> a couple of years ago) can be seen at
> http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/cs427/StateOfArt-Dailey.html
>
>
>
> Doug, I suspect that I should be able to complete the incorporation of
> reviewers comments within a week or two, so it probably does not make sense
> to move the existing document to W3C just yet until that step is done.
>
>
>
> After that is done, we can anticipate a series of comments from other folks
> here, but that process will go on forever, so that might be the time to make
> the document go “live”??
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> David
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 20:54:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:28:24 UTC